Disposed¶29

Mridula Sahay v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC24 Jul 2026CWJC/9363/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retiral dues; provident fund partly paid; 3rd and 4th dynamic ACP (Assured Career Progression); pay fixation salary arrears; family pension arrear difference; statutory interest; counter affidavit paras 6-8; rejoinder not filed; satisfaction of petitioner; representation to Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon; writ disposed of; Patna High Court; Justice Purnendu Singh; CWJC No.9363 of 2023.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a detailed representation before the Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon for consideration and disposal in accordance with law of any retiral dues allegedly unpaid; no monetary relief awarded by this Court. ¶29

Mridula Sahay Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to payment of her deceased husband's retiral dues - the part-unpaid provident fund, arrears of salary difference arising from pay fixation on grant of the 3rd and 4th dynamic ACP (Assured Career Progression), and difference of arrear of family pension - together with statutory interest.

¶20

Court's answer

The petitioner's failure to file a rejoinder to the counter affidavit of respondents no.1 and 2 shows that she is satisfied by the action of the State insofar as payment of retiral dues is concerned.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

In view of the information contained in the counter affidavit, the writ petition requires no further adjudication.

¶28

Key takeaways

If the petitioner still remains aggrieved for non-payment of any retiral dues under any particular head, she may file a detailed representation before the Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, who shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Purnendu Singh, J) disposed of CWJC No.9363 of 2023 filed by Mridula Sahay, widow of Late Dr. Chandra Bhusan, seeking a mandamus for payment of her deceased husband's retiral dues with statutory interest: part-unpaid provident fund, salary arrears from pay fixation on grant of the 3rd dynamic ACP (notification dated 23.03.2017) and 4th dynamic ACP (notification dated 12.09.2020, effective 29.10.2008), and difference of arrear of family pension. Observing that the petitioner had not filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2 - which detailed the retiral dues paid under different heads in its paragraphs 6 to 8 - the Court held she appeared satisfied with the State's action and that the writ petition required no further adjudication. The petitioner was left free to file a detailed representation before the Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, to be considered and disposed of in accordance with law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9363 of 2023

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Mridula Sahay Wife of Late Dr. Chandra Bhusan, Resident of B/170, Second Floor P.C. Colony, P.S.- Lohiyanagar, Kankarbagh, District- Patna.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Deputy Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Patna.

¶9

The Chief Medical Officer cum Civil Surgeon, Kishanganj.

¶10

The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

======================================================

¶13

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Ms. Vijaya Laxmi Srivastava, AC to SC 23 For the AG : Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Amarshakti, Advocate ======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶15

4 24-07-2026

¶16

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶17

petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶18

The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ

¶19

petition has sought, inter alia, the following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:-

¶20

“(I) For issuance of an appropriate order, direction, writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the concerned respondent to make payment of following dues of deceased husband of petitioner to the petitioner with stautory interest:-

¶21

a) Admitted retirement benefit dues specifically the amount of provident fund which has not been paid fully rather only part amount has been paid till date.

¶22

b) Arrears of difference of salary of deceased after making pay fixation subsequent to grant of benefit of 3^rd dynamic ACP (Assured Career Progression) vide notification dated 23.03.2017 bearing number Gyapank 18/Pro 0 Ko/D.A.C.P./01-01-/2016-40 (Pro.Ko/Swa), Patna.

¶23

c) Arrears of difference of salary of deceased

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.9363 of 2023(4) dt.24-07-2026 2/2

¶25

after making pay fixation subsequent to grant of benefit of 4^th dynamic ACP (Assured Career Progression) vide notification dated 12.09.2020 bearing number Gayapank 18/Pro 0 Ko/D/a.c.p./01-01/2019 (Pro. Ko./Swa), Patna, with effect from 29.10.2008.

¶26

d) Difference of arrear of family pension of the petitioner.”

¶27

The petitioner has failed to file rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2, which shows that she is satisfied by the action of the State, insofar as payment of retiral dues is concerned. Specific statement and information with respect to details of payment of retiral dues under different heads to the petitioner has been given in paragraphs no. 6 to 8 of the counter affidavit.

¶28

In view of the above information in the counter affidavit, the writ petition requires no further adjudication. However, if the petitioner still remains aggrieved for the nonpayment of any retiral dues under any particular head, she, if so advised, may file a detailed representation before the Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, who shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶29

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶30

(Purnendu Singh, J)

¶31

Sanjay/-

¶32

Mridula Sahay v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mridula Sahay v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumari Neelam Vs The State of Bihar

Vijoy Kant Choubey Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Narayan Mehata Vs The State of Bihar

Mithilesh Sharma Vs The State of Bihar

Amit Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Rajendra Prasad Vs The State of Bihar